What's new

Pentagon: China’s Military Has Begun To Surpass The United States’s

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 4, 2011
34,592
1
64,372
Country
China
Location
China
Pentagon: China’s Military Has Begun To Surpass The United States’s

New Pentagon paper paints a grim picture of a fractured, debt-ridden America in competition with an emerging Chinese empire.

SEPTEMBER 8, 2020


A new Pentagon paper paints a grim picture of the emerging great power rivalry in Asia and suggests that a toe-to-toe balancing with China is now out of the question. The document titled “Military and Security developments in the People’s Republic of China” charts where China has already far surpassed the United States.

For example, by the end of 2019, China possessed the world’s largest standing ground force and leading maritime militia. China has now the world’s largest navy, already with around a 50-ship advantage over America, a gap that is steadily increasing in a competition that is at a much, much higher pace than the Anglo-German naval race of the 1900s.


The Chinese strategy is mass production and overwhelming attack, so even when Chinese quality is not a match for Western navies, China will simply achieve enough tonnage and numbers to overwhelm any near-peer force. China also has the world’s largest coast guard, and dwarves the air-forces of any Indo-Pacific power.

China has the world’s largest sub-strategic missile forces, with “more ballistic missile testing and training launches ‘than the rest of the world combined.’” China has one of the world’s largest and most sophisticated surface-to-air missile forces, which forms a part of an integrated air defense architecture, covering the entire coastline.

This, to put it mildly, throws into tailspin any idea of a toe-to-toe U.S. balancing with China. While a great power rivalry with China is inevitable and there’s a bipartisan consensus about the rise of China as a rival, given the laws of international relations, this rivalry is also not going to be like our forefathers’ Cold War. China is integrated on a much larger scale than the USSR was, and is not an autarkic power.

That means China can use market forces to wreck the West. In the words of Lenin, they’ll buy the rope from the capitalists, then hang them with it. China is also a much larger giant compared to the United States. In the late 1940s or the early ‘90s, U.S. global GDP share was overwhelmingly over that of all the other rivals. That is simply not the case anymore, with Chinese production and manufacturing coupled with an unsurpassable domestic labor force meaning China can outspend, outproduce, and outmatch any competitor, something the USSR never managed.


China is also not an ideological foe, and unlike the USSR, is not seeking to spread communism by force. That gives China an advantage in places like Africa. China is happy to simply do business and sell arms and push American influence away, while Americans are predisposed to try and shape the internal politics of places we do not like.

China will have no issues with LGBT discrimination in a Chinese-allied state in Africa, whereas the United States tries to impose our social values, in even allied countries like Hungary and Poland. It’s like the Cold War in reverse: the Soviets wanted to impose their social and political values, and the rest of the world increasingly chose to go the other way.

Elbridge Colby and Robert Kaplan wrote in their latest essay that seeing the rivalry of China from an ideological angle will likely stunt the American response because that starting point is flawed. The simple reality is that an ideological struggle automatically assumes that if the ideology is changed, through trade or commerce, or spreading values, then the rivalry is bound to go away.

“To conceive of the competition as fundamentally ideological is also deceptive. Doing so risks indulging the chimerical hope that once liberal democracy has spread throughout the world, the strategic competition will end and the United States can peacefully collaborate with like-minded states in a secure globe,” Colby and Kaplan write.


Unfortunately, great power rivalry historically means that great powers with similar ideologies also clash. The history of Europe is of course evident, but often overlooked is that communist China and the USSR were also rivals. Likewise, if miraculously China tomorrow turns into a democracy, even then the rivalry would continue.

“China’s rise to superpower status will exert a pull toward autocracy. China’s fusion of authoritarian capitalism and digital surveillance may prove more durable and attractive than Marxism,” Colby and Kaplan write, adding that the “very scale of China’s economy, population, and landmass and its consequent power would cause profound concern for U.S. policymakers even if the country were a democracy. Seeing this competition as primarily ideological will misconstrue its nature—with potentially catastrophic results.”

China’s rise historically mirrors another great power’s rise, that of the United States, which after the Monroe Doctrine and hegemony in the Western Hemisphere turned to slowly build up as other powers fought, bled, and withered away. China also thinks its time is finally here, as the United States is forced to concentrate elsewhere.

It is simple mathematics. Consider the 11 American carrier groups spread out across the oceans. Chinese carrier groups will number approximately six by the mid-2040s, but if the United States is still bogged down elsewhere, China will concentrate its entire navy in Asia, dwarfing the combined might of the United States, Australia, India, and Japan. An eye-to-eye brinkmanship will bankrupt the West, and destroy its already fragile social contract, especially with universities and media acting as the enemy within.


There is no way this is sustainable in the long run. America is simply an overburdened titan, similar to the British Empire after World War I. Added to that, the biggest challenges facing the United States are within.

This brings forward a few key questions. What are the regional priorities of U.S. foreign policy? If the United States is falling behind with a defense budget four times that of China, then simply adding cash will not help. A change in strategy is required.

A realist foreign policy, therefore, dictates an immediate end to humanitarian wars, nation-building, North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion, and freeriding, and Middle Eastern wars. Domestic policy must accordingly defund all garbage research like gender studies, and spend those wasted billions in rebuilding a manufacturing worker base.

It would also mean an FBI task force to crack down on anarchists and other domestic subversive forces and propaganda. It would mean pushing big tech to choose a side, between the U.S. government or China. Finally, it would mean creating scenarios that bog China down in warfare and bleed itself dry.

As I wrote recently, to let an adversary bleed itself dry in an ungovernable stretch of land with negligible strategic importance is an ancient, classical, and often underrated grand strategy. Britain and America did it with Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler for a whole year before D-Day; and the USSR did it with the United States in Vietnam, paid back with interest in Afghanistan in an exact reverse play.

In the future, if China ever gets in a conflict with Taiwan or Vietnam, or even India, a prudent policy would be to sell arms without getting involved. Realism is admittedly a hard sell in America, given constantly hyper-emotional public opinion, but there’s a rational, amoral way to restore a balance of power and stop the rise of China.

China is an empire, and the moment it acts imperial, it will invite a backlash, which has bankrupted and bled every empire in history. One needs to allow that to happen. The question is, as always, if American policymakers are prudential enough to follow through.

 

ZeEa5KPul

FULL MEMBER
Jul 13, 2017
1,789
-12
4,996
Country
Canada
Location
Canada
:lol: @ this crappy article. Guess I shouldn't be surprised given the author's name.
The Chinese strategy is mass production and overwhelming attack, so even when Chinese quality is not a match for Western navies, China will simply achieve enough tonnage and numbers to overwhelm any near-peer force.

Find me a Western warship with a destroyer at this level. I'll wait.
Chinese carrier groups will number approximately six by the mid-2040s
Try six by the mid-2020s.
As I wrote recently, to let an adversary bleed itself dry in an ungovernable stretch of land with negligible strategic importance is an ancient, classical, and often underrated grand strategy.
In the future, if China ever gets in a conflict with Taiwan or Vietnam, or even India, a prudent policy would be to sell arms without getting involved.
:omghaha:
Too bad they wouldn't last a week.
 

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 4, 2011
34,592
1
64,372
Country
China
Location
China
In the future, if China ever gets in a conflict with Taiwan or Vietnam, or even India, a prudent policy would be to sell arms without getting involved.
It takes a fairly long time to man a new ship and get it battle ready, when a war already breaks out, it'll be too late for them.
 

PakPrinciples

FULL MEMBER
May 6, 2013
417
1
479
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Find me a Western warship with a destroyer at this level. I'll wait.
I recall coming across this same point both from White Supremacists and their Indian proxies and it's typical Western bullshit.

Everyone forgets the term "planned obsolescence" and then blame it on China rather than the manufacturer forgetting the Chinese also make things considered high quality like iPhones and now Tesla automobiles.

Anyone who disparages China based on this is an idiot.

China will have no issues with LGBT discrimination in a Chinese-allied state in Africa, whereas the United States tries to impose our social values, in even allied countries like Hungary and Poland. It’s like the Cold War in reverse: the Soviets wanted to impose their social and political values, and the rest of the world increasingly chose to go the other way.
Very interesting he mentions this because I've literally said the same thing before referring to the US as the new USSR.

They've been imposing their views and degenerate culture on everyone else even now with Sudan's admission that the US won't take it off the terror watch list unless it recognizes Israel.

The same way the US weaponizes the FATF and IMF against Pakistan whether its to protect India or push to end our relations with China.

That coercion coupled with its betrayals and murder won't soon be forgotten.

Finally, it would mean creating scenarios that bog China down in warfare and bleed itself dry.

As I wrote recently, to let an adversary bleed itself dry in an ungovernable stretch of land with negligible strategic importance is an ancient, classical, and often underrated grand strategy. Britain and America did it with Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler for a whole year before D-Day; and the USSR did it with the United States in Vietnam, paid back with interest in Afghanistan in an exact reverse play.

In the future, if China ever gets in a conflict with Taiwan or Vietnam, or even India, a prudent policy would be to sell arms without getting involved. Realism is admittedly a hard sell in America, given constantly hyper-emotional public opinion, but there’s a rational, amoral way to restore a balance of power and stop the rise of China.
China is an empire, and the moment it acts imperial, it will invite a backlash, which has bankrupted and bled every empire in history. One needs to allow that to happen. The question is, as always, if American policymakers are prudential enough to follow through.
This implies China would have learned nothing from history and is as stupid and arrogant as the US and I don't understand what implies it is.

I don't see China falling prey to the "bleed itself dry" strategy because I don't see China invading and occupying countries like Vietnam and getting bogged down in combating a guerilla war the way the US and USSR have hoping in Afghanistan.

Seems like a lot of this guys views are "hopes" based on nothing.

In the case of nations like India, China like Pakistan, have no no interest in occupying the whole of their country only retrieving territory of ours India occupies. Furthermore, China has a reliable ally in Pakistan so it wouldn't be alone in its fight.

With that in mind thinking the US can just "sell arms without getting involved" won't help considering they've had access to some of the worlds best armaments from the USSR, Russia, EU and US without any restrictions so what would change? It was Pakistan that is sidestepped and continually denied access to technology (ex. Russia refusing to sell the S-400 to Pakistan) or outright betrayed by its "allies" like the US (ex. US refusing to deliver F-16's we ordered while refusing to refund us) who we depend on for almost nothing now anyways.

The only territory I could ever see China actively invading and keeping is Taiwan but I strongly doubt the peoples of Taiwan would wage a guerilla war against China at least anything meaningful. Taiwan would be devastated by such a war and if China brings stability it'll go along quietly while those who dislike China will liquidate their assets there and leave (kind of like the situation with Hong Kong).

It would also mean an FBI task force to crack down on anarchists and other domestic subversive forces and propaganda. It would mean pushing big tech to choose a side, between the U.S. government or China. Finally, it would mean creating scenarios that bog China down in warfare and bleed itself dry.
This would require a complete overhaul of American culture, values and constitution where freedom of speech and expression is valued.

Just don't see this happening otherwise that's the end of the US.

Also why would big tech choose the US over China? I believe it was this year or maybe it'll happen next year that China would become the largest retail market on the planet and considering the US has long spied on and interfered in a host of nations globally even their own allies most countries would trust Chinese technology over the US'.
 

Ziggy1977

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

May 3, 2019
95
0
49
Country
United States
Location
United States
correct China will have 6 Carrier Strike Groups by mid 2020s.

not bad. the USA today has 10 Carrier Strike Groups and 9 Expeditionary Strike Groups now. japan will also have 4 Carrier Strike Groups by the 2nd of the 2020s. the UK will have 2, France 1, india 2, Russia maybe one.

Spain, Italy will have a combined 3 Expeditionary strike groups with Fighter jets.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Top